-->
@mustardness
I could see how experience precedes thought. But if you looked in the other direction, couldn't you also say that induction precedes thought?
Moral Relativism vs Moral Discussion
Posts
Total:
36
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Huh? I have no idea what your "induction" is supposed to be or reference exactly. I fear you may be going off on a chewing-gum philsophical and irrelevant mind-game. Time may tell if my concern is true.But if you looked in the other direction, couldn't you also say that induction precedes thought?
I do know what metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts, ---ex concepts of space--- as thoughts, is.
I do know what an occupied space is.
I do know what non-occupied space is, in the most wholsitically comprehensive cosmic sense.
Experience precedes thought and glad you can see how that is true. Twice we have come to a win/win agreement. Holy Mackerel!
-->
@mustardness
you're in a philosophy thread and you don't know what induction is (the basis of all philosophical arguments) and yet when I ask for a definition to your overly complicated synergy thing, you flip your lid. Man you're a real piece of work I got to tell you.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Man you're a real piece of work I got to tell you.
Man is 2nd only to woman in complexity{ "piece" of Gods/Universe "work" }
When you want to not play irrelevant chewing-gum mind-games, please share, by addressing my comments as stated/presented.
I have no idea what your "induction" is supposed to be or reference exactly and ---unlike myself in many threads-- you obviously dont want to attempt to explain yourself. Why?
I fear you may be going off on a chewing-gum philosophical and irrelevant mind-game. Time may tell if my concern is true.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I do know what metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts, ---ex concepts of space--- as thoughts, is.
I do know what an occupied space is.
I do know what non-occupied space is, in the most wholsitically comprehensive cosmic sense.
Experience precedes thought and glad you can see how that is true. Twice we have come to a win/win agreement. Holy Mackerel!
-->
@mustardness
It's not that I don't want to explain myself, it's just that you don't explain yourself so I don't feel the need to reciprocate.
Tell you what.
You link me an explanation of synergy as applied to math (ergo how 1 + 1 = 4) and then I'll explain induction to you. fair beans?
...It's not that I don't want to explain myself...
False and the evidence is self-explanatory, you havent explained yourself for use of "indution" in your statement.
You link me an explanation of synergy as applied to math (ergo how 1 + 1 = 4) and then I'll explain induction to you.
That is a differrent thread, see LINK if you want actually behave like a morally fair person and address my comments as Ive repeatedly, clearly and concisely given you from myself and at least two other sources.
fair beans?
You rarely have played fair with me and I dont see you changing any time soon. Go that LINK above if want to address my synergy posts directly to you. Please stop playing irrelevant chewing-gum mind-games.